Traveling down memory lane, the previous notes in this series sought to describe the Chinese perspective on relations with the U.S., and their inescapable partnership on the world scene
Chinese strategy is often described as a thoughtful process, biding its time and seeking to achieve a reasonable balance between beneficial goals (for China) and a honorable status (for the foreign, non-Chinese, parties)
The Geopolitics of Weiqi mirror this quest for stability
Questions better left unanswered, the second note, touched on the temptation to use material force, because a bipolar world does not lend itself easily to a balanced outcome
Negotiations have every chance to remain unstable because the complexity of the relationship elicits case-by-case responses, transactional by nature and forever disputed
However, the rise of China on the world scene cannot be reduced to such pedestrian tactics
China cannot afford to leave foreign affairs in limbo while its social tissue is torn apart by lopsided and unfair domestic growth patterns
Wealth creation has benefited the few, education remains inaccessible to millions, environmental costs are rising and on and on...
Stressed out by a generational growth spurt, the Chinese social pact risks fragmentation, with fault lines running deep
As discussed in the third note 'Engaging China - a Roadmap', Chinese leadership appears intent to reassert the foundational value of ideology for this very reason
The magnitude of the challenge and the potency of social forces stirring in China's background foster uncertainty
U.S. diplomacy cannot afford to ignore the risks of upheaval
Nor should America overlook the opportunities to resume the dialogue
In context, the disjointed U.S. approach seems woefully out of step
American businessmen argue on behalf of trade (and their pocketbook) to keep China ‘open’ to international influence
The Jesuit missionary Marco Ricci voiced similar expectations (on behalf of the Christian faith, with trade not far behind) when soliciting his admission to the Ming court in 1582 - he waited close to 20 years for an invitation
U.S. foreign policy projects hard military power on the outer rim of the Pacific, but its true influence is skewed by the growing economic presence of China in the region
Democratic engagement, under the banner of human rights, has been left to so many confused interpretations as to become an illusion of what America stands for
American incoherence may at times be perplexing, but for China to underestimate free enterprise and democratic values comes with the risk of overstepping the confidence borne out by its own success
Pulling up the drawbridge, an isolationist undercurrent of American politics which remains ever present and is gamely acted upon with a degree of success by candidates for higher office, fails the test of an articulate combination of economic engagement, foreign policy and democratic values
The latest iteration saw the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the increase of exports from China to the U.S. (and to Asian neighboring countries) and the withering of democratic values (while pandering to North Korea’s dictator)
In effect pro-Chinese, this policy is troubling, especially while contending to engineer the opposite, the more so because the current Administration has proven unable to reassess these critical dimensions
The withdrawal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to which both presidential candidates, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, committed in 2016, is a basket case of America’s current inability to implement policy in a multi-dimensional world
All the while, U.S. imports continue to grow
U.S. business, openly encouraged by Beijing, feels free to lobby on behalf of China’s economy
Democratic values lose some of their shine
In the end, the U.S. may have to rely on the country’s sole material might, crouched in a defensive posture behind high walls
Seeking venues, which in foreign affairs allows for dialogue and for leverage, posits a different format
Isolationism, promoted by anti-Chinese political forces in America has, ironically, much in common with export-focused, mercantile, economies such as China
Either way, in the interest of putting their country 'first', which is only a natural, China and the U.S. are stranded in transactional relations all over the world, one 'deal' at a time
Transactions usually resolve a 'problem' by compromise, but since issues tend to multiply, they will be creating an unfathomable web of loose agreements
Reaching a dead end because problem solving on a global scale is fraught with contradictions, dialogue becomes deceptive and leverage ephemeral
U.S. business has started to recognize the fact, reluctantly, after hitting the proverbial brick wall on Chinese markets repeatedly, attributing failure to Chinese highhandedness, not to their own inconsistencies
The projection of American military power has failed even more repeatedly in recent decades to shift from the deployment of force as a last resort (when peaceful resolutions flounder) to perceptive management of a situation
Setting aside the impulse to find solutions to any 'problem', America's relationship with China is bound to seek venues of dialogue and leverage in 'situations' without solution...
On close observation, American foreign policy has indeed been raising the stakes, taking stock of the Chinese 'situation'
Businesses, deeply engaged in China's economy, will almost certainly have to reassess their own 'compromises'
A follow-up note "America's China Policy" will attempt to single out markers